Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Structural Deficit

"Produces theatrical works while prioritizing accessibility through free and discounted events, and provides dedicated mentorship and career development for early-career artists."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

What does this mean?

Persistently low financial health over 5 years despite strong programmatic output. They are borrowing from their future (or bleeding an endowment) to pay for today's programs.

The Path Forward

The Truth-Teller

Forces necessary, painful cuts to preserve the core. It demands that the organization stop borrowing from its future and align its current programmatic output with actual sustainable revenue.

The Truth-Teller
The Truth-Teller
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Structural Deficit ↓
Overall
23
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Structural Deficit

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 43.6% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 — — 44.4% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 — — 45.4% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 — — 28.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — — 43 Financially Distressed Recovery
2017 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — — 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 — — — 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 49 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 — — — 39 Fragile Recovery
2009 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Frederick Artistic Director 18.0% of Rev
Edmund Baker Artistic Director 15.2% of Rev
John Ralls Board Of Directors And General Manager 6.8% of Rev
David Ghatan Board Of Directors, Chairman —
Claire Carlin Treasurer —
Heather Whitpan Board Of Directors —
Sonali Kumar Board Of Directors —
J Toscano Board Of Directors —
Olivia Kohler-Maga Board Of Directors —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Frederick Artistic Director 17.2% of Rev
Edmund Baker Artistic Director 14.3% of Rev
John Ralls Board Of Directors And General Manager 12.1% of Rev
David Ghatan Board Of Directors, Chairman —
Claire Carlin Treasurer —
Heather Whitpan Board Of Directors —
Sonali Kumar Board Of Directors —
J Toscano Board Of Directors —
Olivia Kohler-Maga Board Of Directors —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Frederick Artistic Director 14.8% of Rev
John Ralls Secretary 8.9% of Rev
Edmund Baker Artistic Director 6.9% of Rev
David Ghatan Board Of Directors, Chairman —
Claire Carlin Treasurer —
Eileen Vitelli Board Of Directors —
Sonali Kumar Board Of Directors —
Jim Rosenberg Board Of Directors —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Frederick Artistic Director 14.0% of Rev
Edmund Baker Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
David Ghatan Board Of Directors, Chairman —
John Ralls Secretary —
Claire Carlin Treasurer —
Eileen Vitelli Board Of Directors —
Gerald Yuille Board Of Directors —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
23 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 106 other orgs in DC with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 47 points below the peer median (5 vs. 52).

5-year trend: Structural Deficit

Persistently low financial health over 5 years despite strong programmatic output. They are borrowing from their future (or bleeding an endowment) to pay for today's programs.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 43.6% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.